Avaa tiedosto - TamPub - Tampereen yliopisto

Of the written grounds for the decisions, three different violence discourses can be
identified. By the interaction discourse it is referred to how violence in the family is interpreted
to be about unsuccessful interaction and about a difficult intimate relationship.
The risk discourse in turn includes an understanding of violence both as a physical and
psychological risk factor and endangerment of safety. The third identified discourse is
named the child-rearing discourse which means dealing with violence against children
from the point of view of discipline.
Social workers’ reports play a central role as providers of expert knowledge in
child custody dispute cases taken to court. It seems to be fairly common to leave descriptions
of violence out of the reports. When violence is eventually written about in
the reports, it is often done inaccurately, by using euphemisms and avoiding taking a
stand. The assessment is often based on whether also other authorities are aware of occurred
violence. In the assessment process, social workers’ own observations about parents
and children are used as well.
Regarding child sexual abuse, the analysed case documents demonstrate that the attitudes
of professionals in social services and health care and judges vary between two
standpoints that deviate from each other. From the “criticism of suspicion” point of
view, suspicion of sexual abuse raised in child custody disputes can be suspected to be
fabricated to serve a purpose. At the same time it might be emphasized how just a suspicion
already hurts the accused parent and burdens the allegedly victimized child.
When the situation is looked at from the ”concern for the child” perspective, it is emphasized
that sexual abuse of children endangers and erodes seriously their possibilities
to a safe life and balanced development.
In summary, the handling of physical violence and child sexual abuse in child custody
disputes is unsystematic, inaccurate and even belittling. Other researchers have
reminded us that, in the context of family law, violence is basically a marginal problem.
This research supports the idea of a marginal position of violence in the activities of authorities
concerning custody and visitation practices. Problems in encountering violence
can also be placed in a larger context, the context of the welfare state. According to
studies, the Finnish welfare state has not taken clear responsibility for domestic violence
but rather tolerated it for long.
9